Welcome to my blog. HIV prevalence is not a reliable indicator of sexual behavior because the virus is also transmitted through unsafe healthcare, unsafe cosmetic practices and various traditional practices. This is why many HIV interventions, most of which concentrate entirely on sexual behavior, have been so unsuccessful.

Before anyone rushes to point out that prevalence figures in some countries remain higher because widespread treatment keeps more HIV positive people alive, they should also bear in mind that "for every two individuals starting treatment, five become infected with HIV": incidence is also still high. Which is even worse for the 'treatment is prevention' brigade, because it isn't, especially in high prevalence countries. The percentage of HIV positive people on treatment may not be high enough to test the 'treatment is prevention' hypothesis, but the strategy is clearly not enough on its own.

Parkhurst and Whiteside are good at milking the publicity machine and are aware of the benefits of toeing the HIV industry party line. As well as attracting press attention, a 'no sex month' assumes that most HIV transmission is a result of heterosexual sex. Some probably is, perhaps most is, but we don't know the relative contribution of sexual an non-sexual transmission. Where non-sexual transmission, such as through unsafe healthcare or cosmetic practices, is common, a no-sex month will have very little impact. Worse, it will deflect attention from practices that risk transmitting all sorts of blood-borne pathogens, such as hepatitis, bacterial infections, scabies and whatever else.

Sadly, Kenya is said to be considering such a campaign; they wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to get more funding for yet another useless strategy, and there's also the publicity. Worse still, Swaziland, with one of the worst HIV epidemics in the world, is also said to be considering a no sex month campaign. So I hope they read the article that shows that the strategy is like all the others: media-friendly hype.

People who give up something (or try to) for Ramadan, Lent or any other period will know how hard it is to break a habit or deny themselves a pleasure, even for just a month. But where an addiction or compulsion is involved, even reducing ones indulgence is difficult, and may not happen at all. Alcoholics and people with certain eating disorders, for example, may be able to release themselves completely from something that blights their lives if it were possible for them to stop for just one month. But sex, for most people, is neither a habit, an addition nor a compulsion. It's an appetite, a normal, healthy appetite at that. It's also a human right.

Many people can and do exercise self control as and when they need to. But what is the status of an imperative such as a 'no sex for a month'? It's irrelevant for most people, even in relatively high HIV prevalence countries; most people are not HIV positive, many who are are not sexually active, many don't have HIV positive sexual partners. A blanket, self-imposed ban on sex for a month is nothing like a similar ban on smoking, drinking, overeating, sugar consumption, drunk driving, texting while driving or anything else that results in high levels of injury or bad health. And banning any of those addictions, compulsions and anti-social habits has rarely had much impact. A no sex month wouldn't even have the arguable advantage of a religious motivation.

The mathematical modelling exercise is useful because it finds that none of the interventions show much benefit; it's not just the no sex month idea that is unlikely to give benefit, even if everyone were to magically abstain from sex for a month. But there are also interesting thought experiments around a no sex month. During Lent, chocolate eating, alcohol consumption, smoking and whatever else is probably more concentrated in high-user groups, those most likely to benefit from abstaining from their addiction, habit or compulsion. Heterosexual HIV transmission should end up being confined to those most likely to transmit heterosexually in the normal course of events!

If a no sex month didn't look like a non-starter before you thought about it for a few minutes, you would quickly dismiss it after a few minutes. It just shows you how much time, resources and effort could be avoided with the employment of a bit of thought. But where money and careers, even egos are involved, there's no accounting for the conclusions people will arrive at. The authors "do not conclude that an intervention based on a yearly no-sex or safe-sex month would be ineffective, merely that it would be as effective as an alternative policy that spreads out the reduction in transmission across the whole year".

However, money, careers and egos probably are involved and the silly idea, the sort that the media like the most, may result in more wastage and increased morbidity and mortality, or at least a continued failure to reduce these. The authors recommend comparing a no sex month strategy with male circumcision, concurrency reduction messages and condom promotion. But these, while possibly not so silly, have been shown to be wrong headed and/or ineffective. Different things need to be considered, not more of the same. As a non-scientist, I would suggest that a reduction in anti-African and anti-female prejudice among HIV researchers and the HIV industry could do more than the combined benefits of all the clever and stupid ideas that have been discussed over the last 30 years.

Thank you for your comment. "Since Kenyans almost always shag their own tribe..." You don't present any evidence for this and it is unlikely to be true. Why, for example, is prevalence 12% among Luhya women but only 1.9% among Luhya men? In fact, the male to female ratio varies considerably between tribes. Also, birth rates are highest among Somali and some of the other tribes where HIV prevalence is low. Neither sexual nor non-sexual transmission can explain the entire epidemic in Kenya or elsewhere. But hypotheses need to include all relevant modes of transmission rather than making unfounded assumptions about sexual behavior.

People are tribal so blacks tend to shag blacks, whites tend to shag whites, Kikuyus tend to shag Kikuyus, Luos tend to shag Luos, etc. You're a rare exception to the rule, just like several of my black cousins who are married to white and Asian women, and women of other Kenyan tribes.

The reason Luhya women have a much higher HIV prevalence than Luhya men is due to heterosexual anal sex.

The reason Somalis have a low HIV prevalence rate is because they're Muslims so they don't sleep around as much as non-Muslims. There's a difference between having many kids and sleeping around.

Popularity of anal sex (straight and gay) varies from tribe to tribe. Kisumu and Nyeri are full of Luos and Kikuyus respectively. Luo men have 10 times the HIV prevalence of Kikuyu men. This is because 47.7% of Kisumu residents practice anal sex regularly. Please search for Peter Mwaura at the page below.

Thank you for your speculations, which are interesting. However, no amount of unsafe sexual behavior rules out the possibility that some HIV is transmitted non-sexually. In other words, 'unsafe' sexual behavior rates can be as high as these researchers claim it is, with their often rather dubious surveys, but that does not mean that health services are universally safe and that no one is ever exposed to non-sexually transmitted HIV. As for the ideas such research propagates about assumed 'African' sexuality, these are about as racist as you can find and I'm surprised to hear that most people embrace them so wholeheartedly. But it's interesting to reflect on the fact that the Nazis used to insinuate such things about Jews and other groups that they felt were 'inferior beings' and I'm sure they would accept the research you cite without question, just as you and the HIV industry do. If objecting to a racist (and sexist) agenda makes me an exception, I'm happy to accept that part of your argument.